When taking an oath, people can choose to swear or affirm depending on their region and beliefs. Some Christians and religious groups choose to affirm because of their beliefs in telling the truth. The issue of affirmation vs. oath arose in the 1600s, and the convention of offering both choices became common. However, some countries do not accept affirmations, which can be a problem for those with religious beliefs against swearing. Different conventions exist for choosing to affirm rather than swear.
Many oaths of office contain the text “I, ________ swear (or affirm)…” When people take such an oath, they have a choice between swearing and affirming, depending on the region in which they live. When someone chooses to affirm rather than swear, the swearing is more properly known as an affirmation. The difference between the two may seem subtle, but for some people it is extremely important. It also continues to be a problem in some regions of the world.
Some Christians prefer to say “I affirm” rather than “I swear” because of a section in the book of Matthew where Christ is said to have specifically advised his followers not to swear. Quakers, Mennonites, and members of some other Christian sects choose not to swear because they are strong believers in telling the truth at all times, and feel that swearing to tell the truth goes against their religious values because it suggests they might be lying at other times.
People have been taking oaths for thousands of years, and the issue of affirmation vs. oath really only started to arise in the 1600s, when the Christian church branched out into a multitude of different sects and some bold atheists started to be more outspoken about their beliefs. Quakers in particular found themselves persecuted for refusing to take an oath, and were barred from holding public office and unable to testify in court because of their religious beliefs.
The alternative of an affirmation began to be suggested, with one of the first laws explicitly allowing it in England. Over time, the convention of offering both choices became quite common, and the language “swear (or affirm)” was written directly into the text of many oaths of office. Claiming is not an option worldwide, however, and this can become a problem when someone from a cultural or religious background that prohibits swearing is compelled to testify in a country where claims are not accepted.
There are different conventions on the decision to affirm rather than swear. In some regions it is assumed that someone will swear, and when the text of an oath is read aloud, only that part may be mentioned. If someone in these cases wants to make an affirmation rather than an oath, he must inform the person administering the affirmation before it takes place. In some regions, someone also has to give reasons for preferring a claim. For example, a Quaker would say that he is against swearing on religious grounds.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
